Experts in ICM: Aligning Incentives & Revenue Goals with Vito Brandle

In our Experts in ICM Series Q&A series, we’re sitting down with leaders from across the incentive compensation and sales performance management space to explore learnings, trends, and opportunities that exist for today’s ICM and SPM professionals.

This month we spoke with Vito Brandle, VP of Finance & Operations at Abnormal Security. With a career spanning finance leadership roles across industries including cybersecurity and ad tech, Vito brings a clear-eyed perspective on how finance teams can turn compensation from a cost center into a strategic lever for efficient revenue growth.

In this conversation, Vito shares what it really takes to align incentive comp with revenue outcomes — from cross-functional design strategies to execution best practices and lessons learned the hard way.

<hr>

We’re big believers in using incentive compensation as a powerful and efficient lever for growth. From your perspective sitting in the Finance org, where does that alignment process really begin?

It starts with treating compensation not just as a finance or sales initiative, but as a cross-functional one. Early in my career, I handled commissions mostly solo, and when you’re deep in the weeds, it’s easy to forget just how many teams are impacted by the plans you create.

Now, I break the process into three stages: creation, validation, and communication. The people you need in the room at each of those stages aren’t always the same, but they’re all critical.

Sales ops, HR, comp admins — these voices are often left out, but they’re the ones who actually drive the message forward and ensure reps can trust and understand what they’re being paid on.

What are the most important principles to keep in mind when designing comp plans that support company-wide goals?

I always come back to three: simplicity, transparency, and reliability.

Simplicity means making sure reps can actually understand the plan. If they don’t get it, it’s dead on arrival—no matter how strategically sound it might be.

Transparency is about real-time visibility. Everyone — finance, sales, reps — should be able to see how the plan is tracking throughout the quarter. If you’re flying blind for 90 days, it’s too late to course-correct.

And reliability is the foundation. If the data behind the plan isn’t accurate and consistent, you lose trust. And without trust, it doesn’t matter how well you’ve designed the plan — people won’t engage with it the way you intended.

Simplicity sounds great in theory, but in reality, comp plans often get complicated fast. Why does that happen, and how can teams keep complexity in check?

It’s usually scope creep. You start with a simple design, but then stakeholders start adding edge cases: “Let’s include margin,” “What about this region’s special pricing model,” “Can we roll in a different goal for SEs?” Before you know it, you’ve built a Frankenstein.

The key is to be okay with having multiple plans. Don’t try to force every scenario into one model. And be willing to kill your darlings. Last year, we tried adding margin to our comp structure — it made sense on paper, but the mechanics became so convoluted we had to scrap it. It just wasn’t worth the complexity.

Once the plans are live, what does strong execution look like? And what are the stakes if things go wrong?

Execution is everything. If you mess up execution—even on a beautifully designed plan—you lose rep confidence, and all your upstream work goes to waste.

For finance teams, that means delivering on what you promised. Pay accurately. Hit your deadlines. Communicate clearly. That builds trust.

It also means reducing the manual burden. When I ran commissions for a small team, it still took hours just to prep and validate payouts. That’s time you’re not spending on strategy. You need systems and workflows in place that make execution repeatable and scalable.

We often see visibility come up as a key challenge for compensation teams. How do you ensure reps — and the business — have the transparency they need?

It starts with a single source of truth. All your data should flow from one place. The more systems and spreadsheets you’re juggling, the more chances for inconsistency and confusion.

We’ve also invested in making visibility proactive. We don’t wait for reps to ask how they’re tracking — we push that info to them. Frequent, accurate reporting keeps people engaged and reduces noise. It also frees up the team to focus on higher-impact work instead of answering the same commission questions over and over.

Let’s talk optimization. Once a plan is in place and running, how do you know if it’s actually working?

You have to look at it from both sides: the company’s outcomes and the rep experience.

On the company side, we track attainment by team, by product, and by region. We evaluate renewals, multi-year deals, and product mix. Did the plan move the levers we wanted it to move?

On the rep side, we ask: Do they understand the plan? Do they trust the data? Do they feel like the system is fair? If not, even the best-designed plan will underperform. You need both sides of the equation to be healthy.

Any final advice for finance and comp leaders looking to make their programs more aligned and efficient?

Think of your plan as a living system. It’s not “set it and forget it.” Stay in regular conversation with sales. Stay close to what’s happening in the field. And be willing to iterate.

[BLOCKQUOTE
| Quote: You don’t need perfection — you need clarity, trust, and alignment. If you have those, your comp plan becomes a real growth engine, not just a monthly headache.
| Author: Vito Brandle
| Title: VP of Finance & Operations, Abnormal Security
]

<hr>

If you’re interested in participating in one of the Multiplier Q&A features or have questions about AI’s impact on sales performance and incentive compensation, reach out to us at multiplier@captivateiq.com.